Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"

Ben Campbell
Yes

Comment (2018-05-23 for -01-00)

I'm fine for this going to external review, or directly to approval without an external review. However, if we do the latter it would be nice to see milestones prior to approval.

Alissa Cooper
Yes

Spencer Dawkins
Yes

Comment (2018-05-18 for -01-00)

Please note - my ballot position is Yes, but the responsible AD hasn't balloted yet, so please don't charter this work based on MY Yes!
Beyond that, I'm a Yes with a thought, that doesn't even need to be discussed before this charter is approved, but I'm looking at this deliverable
"2) measuring the performance of the proposed solutions
against pervasive monitoring"
and the corresponding milestone
"- Define, collect and publish performance data measuring effectiveness
of DPRIVE-published technologies against pervasive monitoring
attacks."
and thinking that IFF this turns out to be performance data collection and measurement that could benefit from interaction with IPPM, MAPRG, or both, that might be a useful possibility to keep in mind.
I don't see any reason to adjust the charter to reflect that possibility, of course. And I'm pretty sure that the more work you do on this, the clearer that will become, so please start doing the work, and if it turns out we should talk, we can talk then :-)

Ignas Bagdonas
No Objection

Deborah Brungard
No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk
No Objection

Comment (2018-05-23 for -01-00)

It took me a couple tries to read "performance data" as what I think
is intended, "efficacy in preserving privacy in the face of
pervasive monitoring attacks", as opposed to the more expected
interpretation as "cost in energy/CPU cycles/etc. per bits served".
There seems to be a minor internal inconsistency between "some of
the results of this working group may be experimental" and the new
work item for potential solutions for confidentiality with
authoritative servers, marked definitively (?) as Experimental in a
parenthetical.
I'm weakly inclined to go through External Review for these changes.

Suresh Krishnan
No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind
No Objection

Comment (2018-05-18 for -01-00)

Aren't the first two bullet points obsolete by now? If that works is already concluded, I would recommend to remove them.

Alexey Melnikov
No Objection

Comment (2018-05-24 for -01-01)

I am still trying to figure out if there are any any interactions between this work and what DOH WG is working on.

Eric Rescorla
No Objection

Comment (2018-05-23 for -01-01)

LGTM.
I found this milestone a bit opaque. Perhaps a little expansion?
"Nov 2018 Unpublished document on requirements for DNS privacy services between recursive and authoritative servers (Wiki) "